commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mark R. Diggory" <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] New Commiter Phil Steitz
Date Fri, 06 Jun 2003 12:47:36 GMT
All very well and good, (as you advised earlier) I will try to be more 
patient on the matter. I'm sure this will resolve in time without 
stepping out of bounds.


robert burrell donkin wrote:
> hi mark
> it's pretty much the scenario that you describe that concerns me. phil 
> has certainly been the most active member of the commons-math 
> development team but commons-math was originate by myself. i'm glad to 
> say that tim joined and has done most of the spade work (good work, 
> tim). it's a credit to the commons-math community that the contribution 
> by non-committers has been so great. this points towards a healthy 
> future for the component.
> there are other avenues in apache available for the development of code 
> bases - the incubator project or the commons project where the rules and 
> aims are different. but commons-math is in the sandbox and we need to be 
> careful about remaining within the bounds set.
> - robert
> On Thursday, June 5, 2003, at 11:35 PM, Mark R. Diggory wrote:
>> Robert,
>> Your viewpoint is warranted and understandable, the motivation for the 
>> sandbox is to provide a means to refactor existing projects/fragments 
>> into better designed components, As such its fair to see its activity 
>> oriented to existing developers. I know I was voted in for both my 
>> interest in the Math component project and the past work I've done 
>> with Jelly and HttpClient.
>> But IMHO, this is a unique case that should be reconsidered. Consider 
>> the following: a non-commiter reviews a project in the Commons, sees 
>> that there are avenues for enhancment or refactoring, and proposes a 
>> project to consolidate/enhance those features. This proposal is 
>> approved and a new sandbox project is born.  Because the one who 
>> proposed the project is not already a commiter, their efforts are 
>> diminished during the projects initial development. Thus "limiting" 
>> the projects productivity and future development.
>> I don't believe math started as an independent project, math is the 
>> foster child of the lang project, based on decisions about enhancing 
>> and giving a home to the math features that are present there. As 
>> such, there is a grey area here.  As Phil's basis for proposing was on 
>> code in [lang]
>>  it possibly seems the responsibility for nominating commit rights 
>> falls on the shoulders of that original commons component [lang]. This 
>> is based on the discussions about placing math tools in lang that gave 
>> rise to the sandbox math development.
>> Finally, To clarify, my specific reasons for nomination concern the 
>> fact that a large amount of "energy pushing this component forwards" 
>> is coming from Phil, being he initially proposed the project, isn't it 
>> unfair to exclude him from being a member of the team that brings it 
>> to maturity?
>> Long live Jakarta-Commons,
>> Mark Diggory
>> robert burrell donkin wrote:
>>> i'm sad to do this (since i think that phil's demonstrated the 
>>> qualities required and i'd support a nomination when and if math 
>>> makes it into the commons proper) but i think that nominating people 
>>> for contributions to the sandbox will cause troubles (sooner or 
>>> later) and also that it's against the spirit of the common charter.
>>> as i understand it, the commons is responsible for supervising the 
>>> sandbox,
>>>  nothing more. the sandbox is not a subproject in it's own right and 
>>> exists only to allow apache developers to collaborate. i believe that 
>>> the commons can and should only elect committers for its own components.
>>> i also feel that one of the reasons stated by mark for nomination 
>>> (that we need him on board to make it to release) is not a good one. 
>>> we in the commons are charged by the ASF with supervising the 
>>> sandbox. if there is insufficient energy to push a component forwards 
>>> then there will be insufficient energy to properly supervise new 
>>> committers.
>>> i'd like to ask the math developers for a little patience. i'm 
>>> convinced that commons-math has a bright future but it will take a 
>>> little time. i also hope that phil doesn't take this personally (this 
>>> isn't anything against him personally but against the principle of 
>>> nominating new non-apache committers for sandbox components).
>>> -1
>>> - robert
>>> On Thursday, June 5, 2003, at 02:39 PM, Mark R. Diggory wrote:
>>>> I'm not sure if I have enough rights yet to nominate Phil Steitz for 
>>>> commiter (I just became a commiter myself). Phil is the initial 
>>>> proposal author on the math project. That in and of itself should be 
>>>> enough to warrant his inclusion. Phil has been supplying many 
>>>> patches and is now considering development of the "complex number" 
>>>> architecture for the package. I think he would make an excellent 
>>>> commiter as he has done a great deal of work via patches to clarify 
>>>> the coding, testing and documentation standards for the math 
>>>> project. We *need* him to have commit rights on this project before 
>>>> we can make it to release.
>>>> +1
>>>> Mark Diggory
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message